n the original version of "The Manchurian Candidate," Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting to put in the
White House, is a right-wing demagogue modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan is to "use anticommunist
hysteria as a cover for a communist takeover."
The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn't have openly
turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his position to undermine national security, while posing as America's staunchest
defender against communist evil.
So let's imagine an update - not the remake with Denzel Washington, which I haven't seen, but my own version. This time
the enemies would be Islamic fanatics, who install as their puppet president a demagogue who poses as the nation's defender
against terrorist evildoers.
The Arabian candidate wouldn't openly help terrorists. Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending to be their
After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist base, a necessary action to preserve his image of toughness, but
botch the follow-up, allowing the terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public's attention shifted, he would systematically
squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once
again rule most of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would make a comeback.
Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without
saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate
our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of
those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear
Again, he would take care to squander a military victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block all
planning for the war's aftermath; they would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy much of the country's infrastructure.
Then they would disband the defeated regime's army, turning hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential
After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied country's reconstruction, simply by failing to spend aid funds or
rein in cronyism and corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies.
Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our
enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them
innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.
At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports, chemical plants
and other potential targets. He would stonewall investigations into why the initial terrorist attack succeeded. And by repeatedly
issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference
if and when a real threat is announced.
Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the terrorist threat for personal political gain, he would undermine the nation's
unity in the face of its enemies, sowing suspicion about the government's motives.
O.K., end of conceit. President Bush isn't actually an Al Qaeda
mole, with Dick Cheney his controller. Mr. Bush's "war on terror" has, however, played with eerie perfection into Osama bin
Laden's hands - while Mr. Bush's supporters, impressed by his tough talk, see him as America's champion against the evildoers.
Last week, Republican officials in Kentucky applauded bumper stickers distributed at G.O.P. offices that read, "Kerry is
bin Laden's man/Bush is mine." Administration officials haven't gone that far, but when Tom Ridge offered a specifics-free
warning about a terrorist attack timed to "disrupt our democratic process," many people thought he was implying that Al Qaeda
wants George Bush to lose. In reality, all infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if they do have a preference,
nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years.